LEGITIMACIÓN
B) Derechos Subjetivos
II. LA LEGITIMACIÓN Y LA CONSTITUCIÓN DE 1978
The attitudinal belief structures are associated with the first belief component in Figure 3.1, attitude, and that is defined as the perception (and evaluations or judgement) that the use of an OSS is favourable or unfavourable (Ajzen 1991; Benbasat and Moore 1992; Davis 1989;
Taylor and Todd 1995b; Venkatesh et al. 2003). This definition supports the argument that attitude can be applied to explore innovation features (see section 2.2: cost saving, functionality, quality characteristics, and trialability) influencing OSS because such factors fit with the feature of perceived favourable benefits and unfavourable risks in the use of OSS.
Because of the diversity and complexity of innovation features (see discussion in section 2.5.1), factors will be better explored using decomposed attitudinal belief structures. Doing so will allow better identification of the diverse and complex technological factors that lead to the formation of attitude. Therefore, attitudinal belief structures will be operationalised for this purpose.
Attitude is formed from the combined influence of factors from the attitudinal belief structures (Ajzen 1991). Based on the structure of the DTPB, and because it is a belief component, an emerged positive or negative attitude has a direct influence on intention (Ajzen 1991; Taylor and Todd 1995a; Venkatesh et al. 2003). This relationship leads us to the following proposition:
Proposition 1: An SME's attitude towards the use of an OSS has a direct influence on intention.
This proposition explains the influence of attitude on the formation of intention. Therefore, it will explain how the combined influence of technological factors that lead to the formation of attitude will influence the formation of intention to use or not use OSS. The attitudinal belief structures – relative advantage, complexity and compatibility (Shih and Fang 2004; Taylor and Todd 1995a, 1995b; Venkatesh et al. 2003) – will now be operationalised in turn, identifying different technological factors and explaining how they influence the formation of attitude towards the use of OSS.
Relative advantage is defined as the degree to which an OSS provides benefits, including economic benefits, image enhancement, convenience, satisfaction and performance, which
Chapter 3: Conceptualisation of Open Source Software Adoption 58
supersede those of its precursor (Davis 1989; Rogers 1995; Taylor and Todd 1995a, 1995b).
The analysis of the literature in Chapter 2 has shown that there are factors which we argue to be benefits that drive the use of OSS. Three examples of such factors, including cost saving, quality characteristics and trialability, will now be discussed to support this argument.
Cost saving (see section 2.2.1) is the first example of relative advantages in Figure 3.1. This factor is an economic benefit (Dedrick and West 2003; Fitzgerald 2004; Forrester Consulting 2007; Giera 2004; Larsen et al. 2004; Valimaki et al. 2005), related to the zero cost of OSS licenses. This factor is relevant, particularly to SMEs, which are sensitive to the need for capital investment in ICT adoption (Dutta and Evrard 1999; Houghton et al. 2001; Saloheimo 2005).
The second example in Figure 3.1 is the factor – 'quality characteristics' (see section 2.2.4).
We argue that quality characteristics represents different types of benefit: reliability fits with a satisfaction benefit; configurability and OpenStandards fit with convenience benefits; and efficiency fits with performance benefit (Fitzgerald and Kenny 2003; Glynn et al. 2005;
Mannaert and Ven 2005; Overby et al. 2006; Raja and Barry 2005; Wang and Wang 2001).
Trialability (see section 2.2.5) is the third example in Figure 3.1 and it fits with features of convenience and satisfaction benefits (Dedrick and West 2003; Kwan and West 2005).
Trialability represents the convenience of testing an OSS to determine its suitability for the organisations' need. Also, the flexibility of trying an OSS before commitment to its full implementation in the organisation extends user satisfaction that the OSS is suitable for use in the organisation.
These example have shown the different types of benefits which fit with the features of the construct 'relative advantage'. Therefore, these factors are relative advantages that positively influence the decision to use OSS. Based on this argument and the relationship between relative advantage and attitude, we offer the following proposition:
Proposition 1a: Relative advantages have a positive influence on an SME's attitude towards the use of an OSS.
This proposition means that relative advantage can be used in identifying factors which represent economic benefits, image enhancement, convenience, satisfaction and performance benefits from the use of OSS. It also provides an explanation of how factors representing such benefits influence attitude towards the use of an OSS.
K. Mijinyawa
Chapter 3: Conceptualisation of Open Source Software Adoption 59
The second belief structure in Figure 3.1 is complexity and is defined as the degree to which an SME perceives an OSS to be difficult to understand, learn or use (Rogers 1995; Taylor and Todd 1995a, 1995b; Venkatesh et al. 2003). We argued that the factor – 'lack of support' (see section 2.4.2) has a negative influence on the decision to use OSS, and will now provide justification for this argument.
The lack of support for an OSS can have a negative influence on an SME's decision to use an OSS because it increases the difficulty of using an OSS (Dedrick and West 2004; Fitzgerald and Kenny 2003; Geira 2004; Holck et al. 2005; Raja and Barry 2005; Wang and Wang 2001).
Such difficulty is a feature that fits with the definition of complexity, suggesting that lack of support is a complexity factor, which has a negative influence on the decision to use OSS. In light of this argument and the relationship between complexity and attitude, the following proposition is offered:
Proposition 1b: Complexity has a negative influence on an SME's attitude towards the use of an OSS.
Based on this proposition, complexity can be used in identifying factors that represent a difficulty in learning or using an OSS. The proposition also helps to explain how complexity factors contribute to the formation of attitude towards the use of an OSS.
Compatibility is the third belief structure in Figure 3.1 and is defined as the degree to which an OSS fits with an existing value, previous experiences or current needs (Rogers 1995;
Taylor and Todd 1995a, 1995b; Venkatesh et al. 2003). Functionality (see section 2.2.2) was identified in the literature, and we argue that this factor has a positive influence on the decision to OSS. The justification for this argument is presented in the next paragraph.
Studies such as Dedrick and West (2003) and Overby et al. (2006) suggest that functionality is a factor that influences the decisions to use an OSS because an OSS would be more appealing to an SME if its functionality meets the SME's business values and needs. From this context, the fit of OSS to business values or needs is similar to the feature of 'fit with existing values or needs' from the definition of compatibility. Therefore, functionality of OSS is seen as a compatibility factor, which positively influences the decision to use the OSS. Thus, functionality should have a positive influence on attitude towards the use of OSS. Based on this argument and the positive influence of compatibility factors on the decision to use OSS, the following proposition is offered:
Proposition 1c: Compatibility has a positive influence on an SME's attitude towards the use of an OSS.
Chapter 3: Conceptualisation of Open Source Software Adoption 60
This proposition means that compatibility can be applied in identifying factors which suggest that OSS fits with the existing values or needs of SMEs. It also provides an explanation of how such factors influence attitude toward the use of OSS, and therefore, how compatibility factors contribute to the formation of attitude towards the use of OSS.